[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 583: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 639: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements CountableCollege football 2012 season - Alliance From Hell

I was so conflicted during that game. I always want USC to lose, but at the same time, I want as many non-SEC teams vying for the championship game as possible.

Player of the game in OSU v Cal was Cal's kicker. OSU likely would have lost if that guy could make a field goal. Also, OSU is egregiously overranked at the moment. They really need to fire Luke Fickell.

As a big ten fan, I think I'll probably spend this football season quietly observing from the corner.

I watched the USC/Stanford game with my parents (who are visiting from the Pacific Northwest). It was quite a bit of fun, actually! They were super-excited that I have the Pac-12 channel way up on my satellite tier- we watched the Ducks game earlier in the day, too.

Husker nation recovered from last week's UCLA humiliation and trounced Arkansas State here in the Land 'o Lincoln. Actually, the biggest concern yesterday was that Coach Bo ended up going to the hospital in an ambulance during halftime (sounds like he's fine and back at work today). The obsession that this town has for the Huskers is both endearing and annoying. =)

My dad and I watched the Arizona State/Mizzou game and ASU should have won that game. They kept taking out their hot-handed starting quarterback on early downs, forcing him to make big plays on 3rd and 4th down, then took him out again on 2nd and goal from the 2 yard line, then again on third down as they tried a shotgun QB draw that failed hard because the play was telegraphed. They got too cute when the game was on the line, and they paid for it.

Cool that USC lost though. I went to the ASU-USC game last year and it was amazing.

thacon wrote:So by bully schools, you means schools that have solid football programs?

I think Rac mostly means Big Bad schools--there are just some schools that people love to hate. Just part of what makes college football fun! (One of my favorite things in that article is that he lists Big Bads/lack of same for every BCS conference other than Big Ten, probably because Big Ten either has none or has two that hate each other...)
Some schools with strong football programs also have pretty obnoxious fans, which makes me actively dislike them, rather than just wanting to beat them in good fun (the big SEC schools, UMich, ND, all FL schools, and obviously USC). In contrast, I actually like Cal and want them to be good, as long as Stanford does better, and I like to see Texas and Ohio St do well (but be beaten by non-USC Pac 12 teams) because I have had positive experiences with their fans and really just like them for probably totally irrational reasons. (Also, my cousin is a compliance lawyer for Ohio St, so even their stupid hijinks have a positive side for me, in that her job that she loves exists...)

I was obviously thrilled by the Stanford-USC result, other than the fact that I watched it in a hotel bar six hours away while Stu's brother stood at my seat. Go Card!

thacon wrote:So by bully schools, you means schools that have solid football programs?

I think Rac mostly means Big Bad schools--there are just some schools that people love to hate. Just part of what makes college football fun! (One of my favorite things in that article is that he lists Big Bads/lack of same for every BCS conference other than Big Ten, probably because Big Ten either has none or has two that hate each other...)
Some schools with strong football programs also have pretty obnoxious fans, which makes me actively dislike them, rather than just wanting to beat them in good fun (the big SEC schools, UMich, ND, all FL schools, and obviously USC). In contrast, I actually like Cal and want them to be good, as long as Stanford does better, and I like to see Texas and Ohio St do well (but be beaten by non-USC Pac 12 teams) because I have had positive experiences with their fans and really just like them for probably totally irrational reasons. (Also, my cousin is a compliance lawyer for Ohio St, so even their stupid hijinks have a positive side for me, in that her job that she loves exists...)

I was obviously thrilled by the Stanford-USC result, other than the fact that I watched it in a hotel bar six hours away while Stu's brother stood at my seat. Go Card!

A while back I made up a ranking scheme whereby each team in every AP poll gets points for their position. 25 points for first place down to 1 point for 25th place. The points are cumulative across all AP polls going back to 1989 when the AP started ranking the top 25. Here are the rankings of the teams you mentioned:

You're only missing Tennessee to round out the top 10. (And Tennessee has been terrible for the last 5 or so years) When teams are consistently good, their fans tend to get cocky, and cocky fans can be bullies.

Also, I made this while in a meeting today. It's super slow, but it maps out the total AP votes since 1989.

transplanted_entwife wrote:Oh, did Stanford have a game Saturday? How was that duck dinner? =P

Delicious.

But regardless, the #1 team has lost two weeks in a row, and now ND is #1 heading to USC. Probably the two most hated programs in college football squaring off with a birth in the championship game on the line. And no one has anything to say?!?!?!?

stupac2 wrote:[
But regardless, the #1 team has lost two weeks in a row, and now ND is #1 heading to USC. Probably the two most hated programs in college football squaring off with a birth in the championship game on the line. And no one has anything to say?!?!?!?

Cal sucks. Awesome that Stanford beat Oregon, as I've come to see Oregon as the Pac-12's mini-USC. Most glorious that UCLA beat USC!!!

And now, the awful realization that it is my best rooting interest to hope that USC pulls off a miracle sans Barkley and beats Notre Dame. . . . After all, if USC loses, it will have lost 4 of its last 5 games and every single meaningful game this season (rivals UCLA and Notre Dame, upstarts Oregon and Stanford). There's a good likelihood that Lane Kiffin will be fired. And that would be sad, as Kiffin is, I think, the primary reason that USC consistently underachieves with the loads of talent it has.

I'm not really sure what the B1G expansion means yet, but it's certainly interesting. You have to think that the ACC will be a second-tier conference pretty soon. Either that or the Big 12 implodes, I bet the PAC is still salivating over the thought of adding 4 OK/TX schools.

Also, I had heard that Kiffin's job is definitely safe through next year, but I suppose we'll see. I also think that USC still has a great shot in that game, since they only seem to play well when they have nothing to play for, and this is the first time all season that they have nothing to play for. Plus the way Barkley's been playing lately a redshirt freshman might be their best QB even if he's healthy. This is probably the clearest "really shouldn't have returned" I've ever seen. I'd feel bad for him if he didn't look like such a douchebag.

Ugh. Dislike both teams, but might have to root for ND just so we don't have to keep hearing about how awesome the SEC is.

Rose: Stanford v. Wisconsin.

That was a pretty impressive blow out of Nebraska, but still, at 8-5, Wisconsin just doesn't belong in a BCS bowl. I guess that's really a remark on how bad the Big Ten was this year. (True, last year, if UCLA had beaten Oregon in the Pac-12 championship, it would've been a 7-6 team . . . but UCLA wasn't close to winning that game.)

Fiesta: Oregon v. Kansas State.

A few weeks ago, this looked like the BCS championship match-up. It'll be interesting to see what the result would've been.

thacon wrote:Unfortunately, some of the AP voters decided that they disagree with the AP's stance on ignoring NCAA sanctions and imposed their own punishment on Ohio State.

I tend to see it as voting against a split championship, which seems valid, rather than voting to punish Ohio State. I know those work out to the same thing, but the spirit is different. Maybe I'm wrong about their motivations, but I can hope.
It does stink that this turned out to be such a good year for Ohio State, it's tough to be punished for other people's screwups in the past.

Ohio State submitted to NCAA sanctions, right? What happens if OSU says "no, we're going to the Rose Bowl"? The NCAA has criminalized some odd stuff. And basically that is only allowed to continue due to inertia and monopoly, as far as I can make sense of it.

Anyways, I don't think an eligible OSU would be in the national championship game. Best teams in their conference: OSU, PSU, Nebraska, Wisco? not a murderer's row (esp after NEB/WIS).

lotsofphil wrote:Ohio State submitted to NCAA sanctions, right? What happens if OSU says "no, we're going to the Rose Bowl"? The NCAA has criminalized some odd stuff. And basically that is only allowed to continue due to inertia and monopoly, as far as I can make sense of it.

Anyways, I don't think an eligible OSU would be in the national championship game. Best teams in their conference: OSU, PSU, Nebraska, Wisco? not a murderer's row (esp after NEB/WIS).

lotsofphil wrote:Anyways, I don't think an eligible OSU would be in the national championship game. Best teams in their conference: OSU, PSU, Nebraska, Wisco? not a murderer's row (esp after NEB/WIS).

I think there's zero chance an undefeated team from a major conference is excluded from the NCG unless there's >2 undefeated teams.

People are quick to justify OSU not being a top team based on their weak schedule (which according to the computers isn't really that weak, but never mention that Notre Dame's only ranked opponents are Michigan (so it's a push with OSU), Stanford (which is a good victory, although extremely close and decided by the refs), and Oklahoma (who are/were overrated). They also barely survived Purdue, BYU, and Pitt.

I'm not saying that Notre Dame doesn't deserve their shot, (they absolutely do) but the unanimous first place votes imply that undefeated>season resume.

What's really crazy is that the only reason Alabama is in the NCG this year is that the worst Ohio State team in over 100 years wanted to play a post-season away game against Florida.

thacon wrote:What's really crazy is that the only reason Alabama is in the NCG this year is that the worst Ohio State team in over 100 years wanted to play a post-season away game against Florida.

Yeah, OSU has no one to blame for this but themselves. They take their bowl ban in a truly meaningless game last year and they're in the NCG this year for sure.

Raccoon wrote:Early thoughts on bowls:

BCS: Notre Dame v. Alabama.

Ugh. Dislike both teams, but might have to root for ND just so we don't have to keep hearing about how awesome the SEC is.

No, you root for a meteor to hit the field.

Rose: Stanford v. Wisconsin.

That was a pretty impressive blow out of Nebraska, but still, at 8-5, Wisconsin just doesn't belong in a BCS bowl. I guess that's really a remark on how bad the Big Ten was this year. (True, last year, if UCLA had beaten Oregon in the Pac-12 championship, it would've been a 7-6 team . . . but UCLA wasn't close to winning that game.)

Also people are reporting that Wisconsin's coach is bolting to Arkansas. So they'll be a 5-loss team without a coach. Awesome! I just hope we don't overlook them.

others.

Whatever. Snoozefest.

There are actually some that should end up being pretty good. UCLA-Baylor should be very entertaining, at least.

There are actually some that should end up being pretty good. UCLA-Baylor should be very entertaining, at least.

Fair enough. I do have some interest in most of the Pac-12 games. UCLA-Baylor, as you note, looks okay, and it sure would be nice to see Oregon State trash Texas in the Alamo Bowl. And of course, it would be unbridled sweetness for USC to lose to 6-7 Georgia Tech.

Yeah, oh boy did that game not go as planned. Not sure what happened to UCLA, it was like their OL just dissolved from the first play. Then again that seems to happen to them, look at the first Stanford game, or the one against Cal. It seems like sometimes they just don't show up.

USC starts the season ranked #1, and finishes it unranked, with 5 losses in its last 6 games. The rest of the Pac-12 can only hope that Lane Kiffin remains the coach of the Trojans for as long as he wants!

USC starts the season ranked #1, and finishes it unranked, with 5 losses in its last 6 games. The rest of the Pac-12 can only hope that Lane Kiffin remains the coach of the Trojans for as long as he wants!

Supposedly he's got a job next year, my guess is that he's gone after that. Unless he somehow manages to not suck, but apparently he can only do that when USC is on probation.

stupac2 wrote:Supposedly he's got a job next year, my guess is that he's gone after that. Unless he somehow manages to not suck, but apparently he can only do that when USC is on probation.

Also, WOOO ROSE BOWL!!!

Damn, does that mean that I need to root for USC to have a reasonably good year next year, so as to give Kiffin a longer leash? Something like a 9-3 season, just falling short of a BCS berth but spurring optimism for 2014?

Also, nice win for the Cardinal. I was expecting a more dominant victory considering how much the Big Ten sucked this year, but I guess Wisconsin did show up to play.

Raccoon wrote:Also, nice win for the Cardinal. I was expecting a more dominant victory considering how much the Big Ten sucked this year, but I guess Wisconsin did show up to play.

I'd like to think that the B1G proved that they were underrated this season. They certainly dropped some bowl games, but Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Minnesota all took their games to the fourth quarter and Michigan State and Northwestern pulled out their wins. Purdue is awful and never had a chance, but you also need to remember that the B1G bowls were basically shifted down two teams because of the sanctions.

I think Wisconsin was the most underrated team of the year. (In assessing their talent, not necessarily their actual AP ranking.) Their star running back was brutally assaulted just before the season started and it took him a while to get back to 100%. Had Wisconsin not lost their coach, I would have picked them to win.

thacon wrote:I think Wisconsin was the most underrated team of the year. (In assessing their talent, not necessarily their actual AP ranking.) Their star running back was brutally assaulted just before the season started and it took him a while to get back to 100%. Had Wisconsin not lost their coach, I would have picked them to win.

There's something to be said about a team that only loses close games. I think everyone who was paying attention knew that Wisconsin wasn't a 5-loss team the way, say, Arizona is a 5-loss team. I never really anticipated a blowout, but I was expecting better than we did. Not sure what, exactly, happened in quarters 2/3, but whatever, our defense stepped up for the second half and we got the damn trophy.

Also, from what I've read, Bielema isn't really all that great. Supposedly the difference in the two Nebraska games was that he had tied the OC's hands in game 1, but was talked out of it in game 2 (something about things like fly sweeps being "not our style of football", if you can believe that, those worked great). I read a pretty large number of analyses that expected Wisconsin to do better without him.

So . . . is the Pac-12 becoming increasingly like the SEC, as in two dominant teams, a couple of pretenders, and a bunch of slackers? The SEC's big dogs, of course, are Alabama and LSU, with Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina as pretenders. The Pac-12's big dogs are Oregon and Stanford (both having gone to BCS games in the past three years -- four in Oregon's case), and the pretenders are USC and UCLA.

I think it's really early to start calling UCLA anything like a pretender. This was their first good season in a while, despite having some big wins in the past few years. If they can't start executing consistently over the next couple of years with the tools they clearly now have, then we can start putting them in that category.

slaphappy snark wrote:I think it's really early to start calling UCLA anything like a pretender. This was their first good season in a while, despite having some big wins in the past few years. If they can't start executing consistently over the next couple of years with the tools they clearly now have, then we can start putting them in that category.

Well, the Bruins are the only Pac-12 team to have won two division titles. But yes, okay, point taken.

As expected. ND was a mediocre team (should've been 9-3 or so) that got a bunch of lucky breaks when they needed them. People can say that wins are all that matter, but when you play such uneven schedules a lucky team can easily get a better record than a much better team. And that showed. Next year they'll regress back to where they should be and everything will be right with the world.

In other news, both of Stanford's TE's left, meaning we lost 5/6 of our top receivers. Our defense returned something like 21/23 on the Rose Bowl 2-deep, so that side of the ball ought to be great again. 4/5 OL starters return, and the 5-star recruits have a year of playing and an offseason to train. If we can manage to find some receivers and a RB this could be the best team Stanford has ever seen.

While that's generally true, in 2002 Ohio State barely made it through the season undefeated and faced Miami in the NCG as 11.5 point underdogs. Granted, they barely made it through that game as well, but sometimes it's hard to judge teams that haven't played common opponents.

Hopefully this problem is at least solved a tiny bit with the playoff. I hope it eventually gets expanded, but a 4-team playoff is better than what we saw last night.

And speaking of the Rose Bowl, it's going to be played on New Year's eve a couple of times in the coming years. I'm not too pleased with that.

thacon wrote:And speaking of the Rose Bowl, it's going to be played on New Year's eve a couple of times in the coming years. I'm not too pleased with that.

I thought the most recent plan is that years including the Rose Bowl as a playoff game will have the playoff games on New Year's Day. I think I saw this on sportscenter's scrolling bottom news thing this morning and therefore may have misread or misunderstood. :)

During the 12-year contract, the Rose and Sugar will host the semifinals four times. In the years they aren't hosting, the national semifinals would be moved from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, sources said.

The only exceptions would be on Sunday, Jan. 1, 2017, and Sunday, Jan. 1, 2023, when the Rose and Sugar would move to Dec. 31, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2022, respectively. If the Rose and Sugar don't host the semifinals in those two seasons, the national semifinals would be played on Dec. 30, 2016, and Dec. 30, 2022. Six bowls, also to include the Orange, will rotate as hosts for the national semifinals. The other three have not been officially determined. Sources told ESPN they would be the Cotton, Tostitos Fiesta and Chick-fil-A bowls.

The article made my head spin, so it's very possible I'm misunderstanding.